We hunt online trolls and sue them

Writing for the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2004, Blair J.A. prefaced his reasons in Barrick v. Lopehandia with an observation about the internet and its potential for limitless international libel:

The Internet represents a communications revolution. It makes instantaneous global communication available cheaply to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. It enables individuals, institutions, and companies to communicate with a potentially vast global audience. It is a medium which does not respect geographical boundaries. Concomitant with the utopian possibility of creating virtual communities, enabling aspects of identity to be explored, and heralding a new and global age of free speech and democracy, the Internet is also potentially a medium of virtually limitless international defamation.

Against the backdrop of present-day online libel, this forward reads like one of the first accounts of human flight. Blair didn't even give the passage a paragraph number.

Yet what strikes me is that it rings with as much prophesy as naivety, as much of what consumes my practice is not the fact of a libel's publication or its proliferation online, but the ability of online defamers to conceal their identity.

Fortunately, many do a poor job and are easily exposed, if one knows where (and how) to look for them. Where most leave footprints; others leave clown shoes. And so, gentle reader, today I present for your consideration the account of 3 such extraordinary gentlemen.

Here are their stories.

"Derek"

Derek came to us after reading about some of our legal handiwork in news reporting about our victory in Borderland Pride v. Township of Emo, 2024 HRTO 1651.

In that decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the respondent municipality had discriminated against the applicant Pride organization, and ordered that it pay compensation. This decision is consistent with 30 years of Ontario human rights and discrimination jurisprudence (see the Oliver and Hudler decisions referred to in the Borderland Pride reasons).

But Derek had big feelings, and as so many do, a concomitant desire to mansplain them at profound and unsettling length (to complete strangers, as one does).

In a series of emails sent to me and several dozen other members of the community, he took it upon himself to express that I "lured" kids into my "disordered lifestyle", that I wanted to "force" my "absurd mental illness clown show into the community" and to share my "perverted sexual hobbies", sought to "indoctrinate", "expose", "recruit" children, and was "a pervert" or "an ally of perversion", and desired to "sexually abuse our children". None of this is true, nor does it have anything to do with the Tribunal's decision or the underlying facts of that case.

All of Derek's ramblings were, and remain, textbook libel. These comments are defamatory because (i) they were published by him to at least one other person, (ii) they were about me, and (iii) they would tend to lower the reputation of a person. That is sufficient to establish civil liability in libel, per the Supreme Court's guidance in Grant.

Derek was unknown to me at the time I received his emails. But he had written to us from his Gmail account on each occasion. This proved fatal.

In February 2025, we obtained an order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice requiring Google to produce to us all of the subscriber information associated with his account. Google took no position on our requested order, and was very cooperative in producing this material. You can see the court-issued order here.

The information produced to us by Google included Derek's phone number, IP addresses, as well as his password recovery email, which was associated with a decor business located in Winnipeg.

Derek has now been sued for libel and reprisal contrary to Ontario's Human Rights Code. The action seeks $50,000 in damages (the jurisdictional limit of Ontario's Small Claims Court) plus costs. It is anticipated that this matter will go to trial in May 2026.

"Robin"

Robin also gets his wings from the Borderland Pride debacle.

After experiencing dissatisfaction with the state of Ontario's Human Rights Code, Robin made a complaint about me to a professional regulator. The regulator determined that it had no jurisdiction. It did not even require me to respond to the complaint before reaching that conclusion.

Upon receiving the regulator's dismissal letter, it appears that Robin visited a website that specialized in selling anonymous "gifts". He arranged to courier me an item labelled with the words "CLOCK'S TICKING" (which, I think, most people would interpret as a threat of violence).

While the vendor's website "guarantees" anonymity to customers, in February 2026 I obtained an order compelling the proprietor to disclose to me the transaction data and customer information for this product. You can see a copy of this order here.

The productions resulting from this order revealed Robin as my secret admirer, and confirmed that the timing of the purchase was a reaction to the complaint dismissal letter. More big feelings, it seems.

Robin has been sued with libel, assault, intentional infliction of mental and emotional suffering, and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code. The action seeks $35,000 in damages plus costs. Robin has yet to defend this claim.

"Brian"

Brian, we would confirm, was the "citizen-journalist" administrator of a well-known regional Facebook page that has been routinely cited for publishing inaccurate, hateful, and problematic content.

In September 2022, he used his page to describe an area Pride group and the organizers of its upcoming drag events as "groomers" with an "agenda". His post, which included the names and photos of our clients, alleged that they were pedophiles or that they would cause harm to children. This was false and based on long-standing slurs used to target, endanger, and disadvantage the queer community.

Prior to commencing an action in libel, our clients instructed us to bring a motion for the production of information about the Facebook page in question.

On October 20, 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made our requested order (viewable here), requiring Meta Platforms, Inc. (which owns Facebook) to produce to us the subscriber information for the account that administered the Facebook page in question. This included the name and email address of the Facebook account holder, any phone numbers associated with the account, the login and logout information for the user, and their IP addresses.

The productions from Meta included IP addresses associated with Bell and Telus, as well as a mobile phone number associated with Bell. Our initial order expressly permitted us to return the motion with additional affidavit evidence if further orders were required to identify or locate the publisher of the page. And that is what we did.

On December 22, 2022, the court made further orders (viewable here and here) compelling the production of the internet subscribers associated with the IP addresses and the Bell customer associated with the phone number.

The confluence of this information permitted our clients to commence an action against "Brian", with certainty of his identity. They claimed a total of $190,000.00 in damages, and were ultimately awarded that sum plus $37,500.00 in costs. A companion action against the same defendant resulted in a similar monetary award.

Final Word

I provide these vignettes for illustrative purposes. They demonstrate that it is not particularly difficult to identify harassers online. I share these as a public service to victims of online libel and abuse, and as a caution to the "Dereks", "Robins", and "Brians" out there. There are many other such examples in my practice.

If you are a victim of anonymous, online smears, please consider contacting us at info@judsonhowie.ca.

-Douglas W. Judson